|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2019 17:28:51 GMT
Hi, this thread gets a little off track and at the time no one has commented on any results they have had from complaining to the Ombudsman. Before I complain I wondered how specific you can be with the Obudsman. Can they/will they look at one mismanaged loan or a couple with the same issue? Do they give very specific answers or are they going to provide the same wishy washy nonsense that FC come out with? I wonder why FC think they can get away with it and if the Ombudsman is a bear with no teeth?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,865
Likes: 2,305
|
Post by keitha on Aug 21, 2019 8:47:33 GMT
I could be a little cheeky and say a "bear with no teeth" is still a dangerous thing, most damage to people, Animals etc is caused by the bears claws and pure strength rather than teeth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2019 13:56:13 GMT
Goldfish with no teeth?
I looked at the FO Website and found that they have only upheld one complaint against FC and that was by a borrower. I fully intend to be the first lender to get a complaint upheld. I guess not all complaints get that far but it does suggest that despite the slating on here and trust pilot perhaps very few people bother to take this step.
|
|
|
|
Post by shanghaiscouse on Aug 21, 2019 19:58:16 GMT
There are several potential grounds for complaint. The advertising certainly is one.
But where I believe they have failed is in breaching their fiduciary duty to us by recklessly expanding the loan book. The level of bad debt is testimony to this. There is a basic flaw in the business model, that they are paid according to the volume of loans they write, good or bad, and the consequences of those lending decisions fall solely onto lenders. To try to lend more to SMEs than the entire UK banking sector combined was a ridiculous objective that was reckless in its conception and execution.
My experience with the ombudsman in other matters like utilities is not good. They are very mechanical and not that smart. But your MP can overrule the ombudsman (or put it this way, the ombudsman won't dare to move if an MP is involved). Also, the FCAs attitude to so-called Fintech is ludicrous, instead of realising that it can be a great cover for some good old fashioned fraud they are all gung-ho about it. So I believe this could also be more of a political case than a legal one. Once my kids are back at school I will dig more....
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Aug 21, 2019 20:05:45 GMT
It is not simply a question of bother. Other factors include the sum involved versus the time it takes to formulate and execute the complaint. If only a few hundreds is at stake it is probably not economically viable if the time factor is included.
Then there is the question as to whether a loss has been crystallised. Platforms are loathe to go down the route of Administration and will go to great lengths to put off the day. Until losses are known it can be difficult to complete a complaint.
Then there is the question of fault/due diligence. if the borrower comes along with a realistic request/pack of lies whose fault is it when the proverbial hits the fan.
Finally there is the ultimate let out of Caveat Emptor. Remember the platform is simply acting as an intermediary between lender and borrower. In particular it is not offering financial advice to the lender so in theory all the due diligence should be viewed with caution - a bit like walking at night in a dark alley full of dogs***.
Doubtless more learned colleagues on this website could add to this list. If making a case and winning a complaint was that easy many would be down that road but the odds are stacked against. Take for example the FC series of London loans where millions of pounds have been purloined by a determined borrower and years on not a penny has been repaid. Administrators have administrated, courts have judged and pontificated but still no recompense and the matter drags on but oh so slowly.
|
|
